1) Your assumption that we all must believe in an uncreated something (the time before God, or all of existence) is based on the fact the rules of the universe are known to us. This is simply not a safe assumption. We can go back to the big bang, but that's pretty much it. We can't look further back from there, so the entire point is moot. We simply do not and cannot know, so it cannot be used to support or refute a point.
2) Agreed. It is a silly argument. Attempting to argue logically for the existence of god in the first place is the same kind of silly, and, of course, silly arguments degenerate into silly discussions. Removed of snark and used correctly, the question "Who created God?" is not intended to "prove" anything, but rather to highlight how illogical assigning all of existence to an act by a single supreme being is (see more below). There is *absolutely* a dispute here. I can't state whether reality has always existed with certainty, and even if I could, the reality prior to our observable universe is, by definition, unfathomable to us. It could be God, or it could be turtles, but more likely (WAY more likely) it's something that functions an order of magnitude outside our perception, and our notions of time, space, beginnings, and ends simply fall short of understanding it. Sure, I guess one could define something we don't understand as "supernatural" the same way a caveman would view a cell phone, but it *proves* precisely nothing, just as the caveman can't *prove* god is a cell tower. More importantly, I don't care whether something has always been there or not, other than as an occasional way to say "If God created this existence, someone must have created God, ad nauseum. If the universe has always existed, then God had nothing to do with it. If the universe snapped itself into existence from a zero-sum state of un-reality, it's a neutral point, neither supporting nor refuting either position." Period. Any other comparisons are incidental and irrelevant to the "Are you there, God?" discussion, as are suppositions on the overall nature of the the universe.
3) Of course you did. You inserted yourself into a discussion about which is sillier: god's existence or POOF.... Universe! The logic train had already left the station, and the ensuing shit storm was your reward for your diligence. It should be obvious that we simply don't know the answers yet, and to an atheist, it's pointless to go further than that (unless there's a bone to pick).
In any case, I'm really not very *emotional* about it at all. I really don't care who's an atheist and who's not, so long as the conflict stays purely theoretical. I'm just having fun with the discussion and trying to dispute your claim that atheists and theists find themselves on on equal ground when discussing the origins of the universe on a nebulous "But, both think something has always existed!". It's really rather simple, from a logical standpoint. If something has always existed and is undergoing naturally occurring phenomena, then it hasn't really changed it's nature. This is a difficult concept to understand (indeed, I don't believe it's possible for us to fully understand it with what we know right now), but at least we have the "out" of missing or unattainable data. On the other hand, by saying a supreme being changed the nature of something that already existed by His force of will alone, we now have to accept that such a being (and possibly his predecessor, and so on) could exist, in addition to the same difficulties in accepting the former situation. Definitely, a much more complex proposition than "they're both uncreated somethings!"
Not that it matters, but your logic is flawed anyway. The definition of a divine creator is an entity that just is and was never created. Since such a creator would have created even time itself, it is nonsensical to ask who created the creator since that would imply that time existed before creation.
I just realized I contradicted myself, with my last comment. I simply do not KNOW what's pulling the strings, or even if the strings can just pull themselves along all happy like, or even what the hell the "strings" are! I am certainly, CERTAINLY not equipped to infallibly understand the cosmos and the fact of creation, and I simply do not really care. It's all amazing, and it's all a happy, badass, and interesting life.
I think it's amusing that you say I'm neoatheist and emotional. First, I don't know what "neoatheism" means; atheism is just the absence of belief in the supernatural; it's sort of hard to redefine a new generation of atheism. I suppose you could say us "neoatheists" are pushing a new wave of atheism on the world, but I can promise you we've always been here. Maybe many of us are more vocal about our atheism these days, with the advent of easier ways to communicate our lines of thought, with some of us rising to proselytizing levels, but most of us just like to chat about our thinking and, yes, our beliefs (the snark is fun, but optional:). Second, the best part of atheism is you no longer have to be emotional about things like god or the afterlife or all the rest of it. It's pretty freeing, actually.
To your point on quantum soup, ex nihilo, and "always existed": we're not equipped to define the "before". That's all. Can you teach an infant to roll out an enterprise level network solution? Of course not; the infant has the rather large task of development and learning to accomplish first. My position on the whole thing is that it's all nonsense until we get a chance to see, and actually understand, what the man behind the curtain is up to, so to speak.
In other words, by definition, reality before "stuff" simply plays by rules we are not privy to. Maybe we will be, someday, and maybe not, but until then, we're all participating in an astrophysical circle-jerk. Defining the pre-universe is really a lot like applying logic to a belief in the supernatural; without solid empirical data, one can claim anything at all, but it's all nonsense, even when packaged up all sexy-like.
Sure, we can observe and interpret data and create models and theorize and experiment, but the fact remains, we're akin children playing with daddy's tools when it comes to universal theory. If "daddy" is god, so be it, but he's a damn deadbeat if you ask me.
I think Pascal's wager takes waaaay too much as a given up front to be taken seriously.
a) Infinite gain (wtf does that even MEAN?)
b) 50/50 chances? Uh, based on.... err? How fancy my pants are? Just cuz it's either/or doesn't mean it's 50/50, sir.
c) I cannot defend either proposition? Well.... that sort of means I can't have an opinion on the morality of either stance, or at least a stated opinion, right? So... you are assuming ends are worth the means, no matter what? Sketchy, man, sketchy.
e) I must wager? No I mustn't, douchebag, and fuck you for saying I do. I can just as easily say "Mr. Pascal, I'm just here to collect on your beer tab. Can you try to get it to me on time next month?"
e) Ok so I finally wrapped my head around "infinite gain" sort of... something to do with a giant sky party? Whatever. I still don't get this "lose nothing" by not believing in god bit. I think you skipped a couple things, Blaise. On the Pro-God side, I "lose" by having to do what people tell me god wants me to do, often when my gut doesn't agree that it's the right thing to do. On No-God side, I "gain" by not being restricted or worried that I'm playing the good person game wrong and gonna burn for it. I think those are pretty important, good buddy.
f) "Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." WTF? DUDE! I thought God was a CHICK this whole time. I can see following a bunch of stupid rules and playing your dumbass game if it's gonna get me a chance with the ladies (hey ladies!;), but.... Man! Just..... I don't even know why I hang out with you anymore.
It's an ok thought exercise, but it would have served much better if presented in a gambling sense, as in "if you stand to gain infinity dollars, it's always worth buying a lottery ticket". Of course, since "infinity" is inherently non-quantifiable, we then have to determine at which point the probabilities involved take a lottery ticket from "sucker bet" to "good idea".
This response is not directed at you personally, but is intended as a general commentary to people that like to play with this argument. There's a logical flaw that always seems to get missed with your final statement.
It's slipped snugly between "If I'm wrong" and "I lose nothing". See it? Right there? No, it's not the comma! Geez! It's the shifty little sneak assumption that when the "maybe" coin lands OMG! side up, your god is the correct god. Hate to tell ya, but even after you've been granted the get-out-of-logic-free card that permits discussion of a supreme being, he's just as likely to be a bunch of Egyptian or Norse or Greek or Hindu deities, or any of the various mono-theistic gods. If it isn't your god, you are SO boned, brah.
If you distill it down, your best "hedge" bet is actually to live a good, happy life, doing good work, accomplishing what you can, raising productive members of society should you activate your baby-making bits, and generally striving to learn, grow, and succeed, and to help those close to you do the same. Take care of your responsibilities and enjoy your existence. But wait a second here... I magically avoided any sort of religious affiliation! Amazing!
If you can get to the point where you do those all of those things, not because your god wants you to, or will smack you silly if you don't, but because you've learned that it actually makes you happy, congratulations! You've leveled up and can choose a new class: "Atheist Good Person", or you can dual class as a "Spiritual Good Person / Non Judgemental Good Person". You can now proceed with being totally happy, with absolutely no fear of death or a stint in hell at the end of the road (also, "see hidden" has received a permanent +4 bonus). Please proceed to your nearest life event with your head held high.
If having spirituality and the love of a higher being helps you, have at it, but chill the hell out with the preaching and the ramming-it into-rules-for-everybody-else bit. Let people do the things that make them happy, so long as they don't hurt anybody, and let the cards fall where they will. Even if your god exists, and he's not 12 greek warlords, and he thinks you're a pretty sweet dude, and your interpretation of his instructions for living a good life is the same as yours, and the bouncer lets you into the afterlife club, it's still not *your* job to point fingers, Mr. Judgey pants.
I, obviously, don't buy into the whole "Oh, DUDE! God's gonna be SO pissed when he finds out I dented his Altima!" thing, but even if I did, I'm pretty sure that living a good life because it makes me happy, by my own standard of happiness, is preferable to living a prescribed but very confusing and often conflicting "good life" because I hope god has my allowance waiting.
I was joking around with a college buddy about this story.
He asked me, as per usual, "Who created that crazy lady's turtles, then?" The only proper answer, of course, is: one-third Splinter, one-third Radioactive Ooze, one-third April in a yellow jumpsuit, and three- or four- more thirds Ninjitsu Justice, depending on how old you were from 87 - 96. Ain't NOBODY but the Foot gonna argue with that theory.
Not necessarily. Just because we don't have valid data (or more precisely, the ability to collect valid data) on the "beginning" of the universe doesn't mean there's not a logical explanation*.
As a thought experiment: What does Pluto smell like? When we meet our first alien ambassador, will his name be Franklin? How many sperm whales, living or dead, have had precisely 22 freckles on their dorsal fins? If your car was a chick, would she have nice tits? Does your observation of a rainbow over North Dakota cause greater than or less than 4 electrons to move across Tennessee to Kentucky? What happened before the dawn of time? Would an ancient Egyptian prefer to use Chrome, Firefox, or Opera? Can you brush a mammoth's tusks without pissing it off? (writing this paragraph was loads of fun, FYI).
Without a useful way to experiment and gather data from a solid observational frame of reference, all of those questions are nonsense. It's silly to even pose them, let alone answer them, until you have both the desire *and* the ability to do so empirically (this could mean mathematically, too, assuming you can prove the laws of physics are still in play, but I digress).
The corollary to the above is we absolutely MUST gather and interpret all of the empirical data we can, without tainting it with supposition, myth, or fantasy. When we do this, our hypotheses are born from an ever expanding frame of reference, from which we are able to ask better questions and get better answers.
*By logical I mean a model that doesn't need to use the phrases "POOF!!", "In the beginning....", or "turtles all the way down".
You want to know what makes me laugh on the inside, every single time something comes up that makes me remember it?
During college a decade or so ago, one of the courses I took was "Business Communications" or some such. One of the key points the course tried to hammer home was "Jargon exists to *save* time, not *waste* time". Bwahahaha... ha... haha... riiight.
The reality is, unless you are certain that your entire audience knows exactly what the specific terms you're using mean, in your intended context, you should not use them. Even if only one person misunderstands you, you'll have to use more general terms to explain again, anyway (assuming the person who misunderstood is brave enough to speak up; if he's not... well, that's an even worse risk).
This should apply to doctors, scientists, and yes, business-folks, especially when speaking to non-colleagues. Of course, this is a rule that leads to good communication; the reason all that business jargon gets slung about like feces is so "my enemy will see just how hard my paradigm will shift his FACE".
Because technical people talking to technical people will eventually lead to one of only two possibilities: one tech yelling "Godwin!" and storming off in disgust, or both techs intently studying napkin schematics, hammering out the best way to construct a real life light saber.
I'd be on board with this if I didn't so often see middle and upper management call "IT" a money-sink. If they actually knew what their IT departments did, they'd be able to quantify it, and recognize that IT departments DO "contribute substantively to the bottom line". They just do it by removing red numbers instead of adding black ones. Saving money and increasing overall productivity is just as important as bringing new money in; perhaps more important, as without the infrastructure, new money can't be targeted.
This comes from a guy who runs his own small business, so no, I don't have a general hard-on for IT. I just know that "important" and "valued" aren't necessarily the same thing for the crop of MBAs I've dealt with in the past.
You know, I struggled with these concepts pretty mightily when I "fell away" from my church. It was very difficult to determine a path after I decided that the false path laid out before me wasn't a path at all, but rather smoke-and-mirrors. I chose to go it alone, and I had a very hard time deciding what it was I should do with my life, and why any of it mattered anyway. All of my soul-searching, agonizing, and the sense of loss in realizing that, for me, blind faith wasn't enough, didn't get me any closer to happiness, nor the "meaning of life". It all seemed so empty, as you say above, and I spent a couple year just feeling lost.
In the end, the very simplest, smallest, most basic of concepts is what pulled me through.
I've become a happy person for one simple reason: I read a quote that said "Choose to be happy, every single morning." and decided it made sense to give it a shot. I know it sounds trite, but I've found it's true. Couple that with following the golden rule as often as you can (including to yourself, tautology be damned; and it's not as easy at it seems). If you do, guess what? You end up a good, happy person, with the strength to handle all challenges, and you'll end up looking back on a happy life, full of accomplishment that YOU have defined. The other interesting side-effect? Even if there IS a higher being of some sort you'll come out ok in the end, and not from fear of a whip.
Admittedly, I do still wonder sometimes (especially when I've altered the state of my mind in one of various ways;). I'm absolutely certain, though, that any "being" at the end of it all is NOT what the organized religious folks tell us. Rather, I think that this "being", or reality, or concept, or whatever word fits for you, encompasses a realm that exists before and will exist after whatever our universe is, and we're just not equipped to understand that. Why worry about the currently impossible? Does it make any more sense to worry about what happens after you die than to worry about how to grow plants on Pluto? You can't figure it out until you know what's gonna happen when you get there. In the meantime, focus on what's important. The way I figure it, I'm adding a tiny but permanent net "good" to existence simply by living happily, and I honestly don't much care about the details beyond that. It's a pretty fine thought to me. Better, by far, than banking on a mythological "heaven" when I die.
The FMLA says you can take 12 weeks for maternity leave; after that, the job can be replaced. Both men and women can take this time off, and it's been in place since 1993.
As for the frivolous sexual harassment suits.... I don't know how much effect these have had, though I highly doubt it's even a small consideration for a truly professional hiring manager.
Besides, even if there ARE people who are worried about either of these cases, and steer clear of hiring women because of their worry, they are the PROBLEM, not a symptom.
I should provide more details. If I default, I suppose they could take all my printers, computers, etc but it affects my LLC, not me (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/biz/Biz_ops/20000831.asp), and really, I would be stupid to let it get to that point. If I can't cover fixed costs, I close my doors. Econ 101. My brother actually closed his shop up, no longer selling his welding supplies or artwork, though he's still got the LLC and business name. He's just not spending or generating until he's ready to give it another go.
My whole point is there are loans *specifically* designed for the high-risk business of... err... starting a business. All you have to do is look, though having spotless credit and knowing an accountant and a tax lawyer helps a shit-ton. Even the bank will be super helpful; they WANT you to succeed. I also don't know if a band can do this; maybe banks don't look favorably on "we want to play music" as a business plan (though, realistically, any business plan needs more flesh than that). However, this model works for LOADS of businesses, and if the big labels die in fire, it should totally be something a band can use to get started.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to get on the Billboard 100 with your debut album, you're talking more about winning the lottery than starting a band. I guess I just don't understand why "making it big" always means making millions of dollars per year for your music, and having every person in the country know your name. I met a musician in Key West once.
She was playing at a bar called Tapas and Tintas (wonderful seafood paella), and she was terrific. I'm talking one of the best shows-I-ever-attended terrific. She took home about $500 that night in tips, and I personally bought a half dozen of her self printed and stamped CDs for 8 bucks each (she gave me one for buying her a shot). She also made another $150 for the gig itself. She played 4 nights a week during heavy tourist times, and in case you missed it, she LIVED in Key West the rest of the year. Do you know what she needed to start up? A guitar, an amp, a macbook, and a cd stamper. Maybe a ride to Key West in the first place; we never got that far in the conversation. Happiest person I'd met in a very long time.
I also met a band called "Clumsy Lovers" here in SLC a few years ago. Great band, unique sound (a fiddle for the motherfucking win!), amazing show, crowded venue, and they love what they do. Not sure if they were signed or not, but they were pro, did their own recordings, and were able to travel (http://clumsylovers.com/about/). I think they're with Nettwerk Records now, who are based in Vancouver.
Even The Used used to play small shows in Provo before getting extremely lucky and attracting the attention of Reprise (I think they've since gone indy?). I don't know if their goal was to get signed from the minute they formed the band or not, but I do know they used to play some pretty kickass local musice.
All anecdotal, sure, but people are succeeding at this while we all bitch about how impossible it is on/..
I came across more snarky than intended. My point was only that others have struggled with these issues for decades in starting other, more mundane firms, and many more people fail than succeed. Bakeries, coffee shops, art studios, flower shops, bars, and many others all start the same way, and yes, you do have to risk a lot to cultivate your dream, but you keep risking and keep pushing until you either have no gas left, or you succeed.
I agree that all of your points are valid challenges, but is it not better to look upon them as challenges instead of obstacles?
IIRC O.K. go said it was closer to 250k to launch a new national band - at the low end.
So get 250k or don't launch nationally. If I wanted to launch a nation-wide volume capable print shop and design studio, I'd be looking at half a million in equipment, people, space, advertising, and all the rest.
You're absolutely correct; starting a nation wide business out of the gate (or band) is both expensive and risky, while starting smaller is both less expensive and less risky (and, as such, less profitable). Success has many measures, and nationwide popularity is the top echelon for a band. There are other measures, though, one of them being "doing what you love to pay the rent."
But still, spending 25k on a start up with a high risk factor is more risk capital then the average person has.
Baloney. How much is the average new car these days? If you can qualify for that loan, you can go small business loan, too, if you write a solid business plan.
Let's say I make good food. Right now I have a full time job to support my family, which means that any food I make is in the spare time between work and sleep and whatnot. If I can't make money off of the food I create, it will continue to be made only in the spare time I have. I will produce it slowly and sparingly. I won't be able to serve that many people.
We don't need a system where I become a millionaire, but it does need to be enough that I can make music (or books, or any other form of art) my occupation rather than my hobby, if I'm good enough.
Bold stuff is mine, of course. We DO have a system, and it's called "small business". Many people are great at a lot of things, and many things can be monetized. In my changes above, the "food cooker" could start a restaurant, if he's willing to risk failing at it.
A friend of mine is a very talented printer, and a moderately talented photographer. He is also moderately (ok, ok... slightly) successful, and sometimes he has to sell things that aren't his favorite things to create, but he's making it. It was a huge risk, and I almost gave up many times. It's looking like he's gonna be ok (knock on wood), but there are no guarantees. But this is his dream, and he was willing to risk everything for it. Are you?
Granted, securing your startup funds and skirting the big boys to get your product to the masses will be tricky, but I have no doubt it *could* be done. I'd love to see the record labels crumble, and allow much easier access to production and distribution facilities, but rather than blame reality, find a way to utilize it.
I note that you don't really explain exactly *why* you or other artists aren't successful at selling music. Is it a marketing thing? Production thing? Distribution thing? Only a portion of the population enjoys your genre thing?
If you could pinpoint where things go pear-shaped, maybe there are ways you could improve inefficiencies or decrease costs that people can recommend. Just like any business, you have to control the costs to maximize the profits. If you cannot do that, then the business won't succeed. Attempting to hire another business to railroad your product to the masses (which is essentially what artists utilizing record labels are doing) is one option to avoid failure, but that, obviously, has a pretty dramatic downside.
Yes. Think about all those commuters driving to work, every single day. It's one reason why ads are much more common during rush hour.
Radio is still a wonderful venue for advertising, which means dollars gravitate toward it, which then means it's a huge benchmark of success if your music gets played, which finally means the record labels buy every second they can, and only offer their purchased time to the auto-tuned "sure things".
Getting air time isn't even a record exec's opinion of "good" or not anymore, which might have been somewhat defensible (hey, it's his company and he really didn't like it; it's douche-y, but they're his rules). Now, though, it's a decision based on what is "similar enough to past success to guarantee new success, but able to be buggered up enough to sound new for a couple months".
I hear a lot new music I like, but anything new seems like it only makes it into the mainstream after getting popular enough in the underground (over years!!) to guarantee a successful "debut".
This is the real issue. So many people ARE able to succeed from the ground up, sweating and bleeding for their dream, working 90 hour weeks to get a business it off the ground to just break even.
Getting to that point is hard enough already, without being told by the Supreme God Of Muzaks, Distributor of Circular Shinies, Father of all Vibration, and Defender of the Airwaves!!! that "It's time to pay me a toll now that you're on my radar. Otherwise, Imma eat your work and shit your dream while you watch."
Well, of course they would. But I think the GP's point is nobody would ever take a loan like that if there were alternatives, and there most definitely should be. Granted, not every musician has what it takes to start a business, but not every inventor or programmer or barista does, either, yet I still see new products, software, and coffee being sold by someone who does have what it takes.
What I don't see is Starbucks able to get away with locking small shops completely out of competition based solely on not allowing competitors to rent the space, like the big record labels can do ("Can we buy up every minute of the day's radio signals and refuse to play nice with artists, period? Well sure we can!!").
Slashdot Mirror
When it's a poorly made Jebus-y thing it does.
Bummer that you spelled diy (Do It Yourself) wrong. :(
Great ideas though.
2) Agreed. It is a silly argument. Attempting to argue logically for the existence of god in the first place is the same kind of silly, and, of course, silly arguments degenerate into silly discussions. Removed of snark and used correctly, the question "Who created God?" is not intended to "prove" anything, but rather to highlight how illogical assigning all of existence to an act by a single supreme being is (see more below). There is *absolutely* a dispute here. I can't state whether reality has always existed with certainty, and even if I could, the reality prior to our observable universe is, by definition, unfathomable to us. It could be God, or it could be turtles, but more likely (WAY more likely) it's something that functions an order of magnitude outside our perception, and our notions of time, space, beginnings, and ends simply fall short of understanding it. Sure, I guess one could define something we don't understand as "supernatural" the same way a caveman would view a cell phone, but it *proves* precisely nothing, just as the caveman can't *prove* god is a cell tower. More importantly, I don't care whether something has always been there or not, other than as an occasional way to say "If God created this existence, someone must have created God, ad nauseum. If the universe has always existed, then God had nothing to do with it. If the universe snapped itself into existence from a zero-sum state of un-reality, it's a neutral point, neither supporting nor refuting either position." Period. Any other comparisons are incidental and irrelevant to the "Are you there, God?" discussion, as are suppositions on the overall nature of the the universe.
3) Of course you did. You inserted yourself into a discussion about which is sillier: god's existence or POOF.... Universe! The logic train had already left the station, and the ensuing shit storm was your reward for your diligence. It should be obvious that we simply don't know the answers yet, and to an atheist, it's pointless to go further than that (unless there's a bone to pick).
In any case, I'm really not very *emotional* about it at all. I really don't care who's an atheist and who's not, so long as the conflict stays purely theoretical. I'm just having fun with the discussion and trying to dispute your claim that atheists and theists find themselves on on equal ground when discussing the origins of the universe on a nebulous "But, both think something has always existed!". It's really rather simple, from a logical standpoint. If something has always existed and is undergoing naturally occurring phenomena, then it hasn't really changed it's nature. This is a difficult concept to understand (indeed, I don't believe it's possible for us to fully understand it with what we know right now), but at least we have the "out" of missing or unattainable data. On the other hand, by saying a supreme being changed the nature of something that already existed by His force of will alone, we now have to accept that such a being (and possibly his predecessor, and so on) could exist, in addition to the same difficulties in accepting the former situation. Definitely, a much more complex proposition than "they're both uncreated somethings!"
Not that it matters, but your logic is flawed anyway. The definition of a divine creator is an entity that just is and was never created. Since such a creator would have created even time itself, it is nonsensical to ask who created the creator since that would imply that time existed before creation.
This gem, especially, is a good on
I just realized I contradicted myself, with my last comment. I simply do not KNOW what's pulling the strings, or even if the strings can just pull themselves along all happy like, or even what the hell the "strings" are! I am certainly, CERTAINLY not equipped to infallibly understand the cosmos and the fact of creation, and I simply do not really care. It's all amazing, and it's all a happy, badass, and interesting life.
I agree, it's fun as a thought exercise.
:). Second, the best part of atheism is you no longer have to be emotional about things like god or the afterlife or all the rest of it. It's pretty freeing, actually.
I think it's amusing that you say I'm neoatheist and emotional. First, I don't know what "neoatheism" means; atheism is just the absence of belief in the supernatural; it's sort of hard to redefine a new generation of atheism. I suppose you could say us "neoatheists" are pushing a new wave of atheism on the world, but I can promise you we've always been here. Maybe many of us are more vocal about our atheism these days, with the advent of easier ways to communicate our lines of thought, with some of us rising to proselytizing levels, but most of us just like to chat about our thinking and, yes, our beliefs (the snark is fun, but optional
To your point on quantum soup, ex nihilo, and "always existed": we're not equipped to define the "before". That's all. Can you teach an infant to roll out an enterprise level network solution? Of course not; the infant has the rather large task of development and learning to accomplish first. My position on the whole thing is that it's all nonsense until we get a chance to see, and actually understand, what the man behind the curtain is up to, so to speak.
In other words, by definition, reality before "stuff" simply plays by rules we are not privy to. Maybe we will be, someday, and maybe not, but until then, we're all participating in an astrophysical circle-jerk. Defining the pre-universe is really a lot like applying logic to a belief in the supernatural; without solid empirical data, one can claim anything at all, but it's all nonsense, even when packaged up all sexy-like.
Sure, we can observe and interpret data and create models and theorize and experiment, but the fact remains, we're akin children playing with daddy's tools when it comes to universal theory. If "daddy" is god, so be it, but he's a damn deadbeat if you ask me.
I think Pascal's wager takes waaaay too much as a given up front to be taken seriously.
;), but.... Man! Just..... I don't even know why I hang out with you anymore.
a) Infinite gain (wtf does that even MEAN?)
b) 50/50 chances? Uh, based on.... err? How fancy my pants are? Just cuz it's either/or doesn't mean it's 50/50, sir.
c) I cannot defend either proposition? Well.... that sort of means I can't have an opinion on the morality of either stance, or at least a stated opinion, right? So... you are assuming ends are worth the means, no matter what? Sketchy, man, sketchy.
e) I must wager? No I mustn't, douchebag, and fuck you for saying I do. I can just as easily say "Mr. Pascal, I'm just here to collect on your beer tab. Can you try to get it to me on time next month?"
e) Ok so I finally wrapped my head around "infinite gain" sort of... something to do with a giant sky party? Whatever. I still don't get this "lose nothing" by not believing in god bit. I think you skipped a couple things, Blaise. On the Pro-God side, I "lose" by having to do what people tell me god wants me to do, often when my gut doesn't agree that it's the right thing to do. On No-God side, I "gain" by not being restricted or worried that I'm playing the good person game wrong and gonna burn for it. I think those are pretty important, good buddy.
f) "Wager, then, without hesitation that He is." WTF? DUDE! I thought God was a CHICK this whole time. I can see following a bunch of stupid rules and playing your dumbass game if it's gonna get me a chance with the ladies (hey ladies!
It's an ok thought exercise, but it would have served much better if presented in a gambling sense, as in "if you stand to gain infinity dollars, it's always worth buying a lottery ticket". Of course, since "infinity" is inherently non-quantifiable, we then have to determine at which point the probabilities involved take a lottery ticket from "sucker bet" to "good idea".
This response is not directed at you personally, but is intended as a general commentary to people that like to play with this argument. There's a logical flaw that always seems to get missed with your final statement.
It's slipped snugly between "If I'm wrong" and "I lose nothing". See it? Right there? No, it's not the comma! Geez! It's the shifty little sneak assumption that when the "maybe" coin lands OMG! side up, your god is the correct god. Hate to tell ya, but even after you've been granted the get-out-of-logic-free card that permits discussion of a supreme being, he's just as likely to be a bunch of Egyptian or Norse or Greek or Hindu deities, or any of the various mono-theistic gods. If it isn't your god, you are SO boned, brah.
If you distill it down, your best "hedge" bet is actually to live a good, happy life, doing good work, accomplishing what you can, raising productive members of society should you activate your baby-making bits, and generally striving to learn, grow, and succeed, and to help those close to you do the same. Take care of your responsibilities and enjoy your existence. But wait a second here... I magically avoided any sort of religious affiliation! Amazing!
If you can get to the point where you do those all of those things, not because your god wants you to, or will smack you silly if you don't, but because you've learned that it actually makes you happy, congratulations! You've leveled up and can choose a new class: "Atheist Good Person", or you can dual class as a "Spiritual Good Person / Non Judgemental Good Person". You can now proceed with being totally happy, with absolutely no fear of death or a stint in hell at the end of the road (also, "see hidden" has received a permanent +4 bonus). Please proceed to your nearest life event with your head held high.
If having spirituality and the love of a higher being helps you, have at it, but chill the hell out with the preaching and the ramming-it into-rules-for-everybody-else bit. Let people do the things that make them happy, so long as they don't hurt anybody, and let the cards fall where they will. Even if your god exists, and he's not 12 greek warlords, and he thinks you're a pretty sweet dude, and your interpretation of his instructions for living a good life is the same as yours, and the bouncer lets you into the afterlife club, it's still not *your* job to point fingers, Mr. Judgey pants.
I, obviously, don't buy into the whole "Oh, DUDE! God's gonna be SO pissed when he finds out I dented his Altima!" thing, but even if I did, I'm pretty sure that living a good life because it makes me happy, by my own standard of happiness, is preferable to living a prescribed but very confusing and often conflicting "good life" because I hope god has my allowance waiting.
I was joking around with a college buddy about this story.
He asked me, as per usual, "Who created that crazy lady's turtles, then?" The only proper answer, of course, is: one-third Splinter, one-third Radioactive Ooze, one-third April in a yellow jumpsuit, and three- or four- more thirds Ninjitsu Justice, depending on how old you were from 87 - 96. Ain't NOBODY but the Foot gonna argue with that theory.
I'm checking this out; thanks for the referral.
As it stands, I only have a brief history of time spent researching the subject.
Not necessarily. Just because we don't have valid data (or more precisely, the ability to collect valid data) on the "beginning" of the universe doesn't mean there's not a logical explanation*.
As a thought experiment: What does Pluto smell like? When we meet our first alien ambassador, will his name be Franklin? How many sperm whales, living or dead, have had precisely 22 freckles on their dorsal fins? If your car was a chick, would she have nice tits? Does your observation of a rainbow over North Dakota cause greater than or less than 4 electrons to move across Tennessee to Kentucky? What happened before the dawn of time? Would an ancient Egyptian prefer to use Chrome, Firefox, or Opera? Can you brush a mammoth's tusks without pissing it off? (writing this paragraph was loads of fun, FYI).
Without a useful way to experiment and gather data from a solid observational frame of reference, all of those questions are nonsense. It's silly to even pose them, let alone answer them, until you have both the desire *and* the ability to do so empirically (this could mean mathematically, too, assuming you can prove the laws of physics are still in play, but I digress).
The corollary to the above is we absolutely MUST gather and interpret all of the empirical data we can, without tainting it with supposition, myth, or fantasy. When we do this, our hypotheses are born from an ever expanding frame of reference, from which we are able to ask better questions and get better answers.
*By logical I mean a model that doesn't need to use the phrases "POOF!!", "In the beginning....", or "turtles all the way down".
You want to know what makes me laugh on the inside, every single time something comes up that makes me remember it?
During college a decade or so ago, one of the courses I took was "Business Communications" or some such. One of the key points the course tried to hammer home was "Jargon exists to *save* time, not *waste* time". Bwahahaha... ha... haha... riiight.
The reality is, unless you are certain that your entire audience knows exactly what the specific terms you're using mean, in your intended context, you should not use them. Even if only one person misunderstands you, you'll have to use more general terms to explain again, anyway (assuming the person who misunderstood is brave enough to speak up; if he's not... well, that's an even worse risk).
This should apply to doctors, scientists, and yes, business-folks, especially when speaking to non-colleagues. Of course, this is a rule that leads to good communication; the reason all that business jargon gets slung about like feces is so "my enemy will see just how hard my paradigm will shift his FACE".
Because technical people talking to technical people will eventually lead to one of only two possibilities: one tech yelling "Godwin!" and storming off in disgust, or both techs intently studying napkin schematics, hammering out the best way to construct a real life light saber.
I'd be on board with this if I didn't so often see middle and upper management call "IT" a money-sink. If they actually knew what their IT departments did, they'd be able to quantify it, and recognize that IT departments DO "contribute substantively to the bottom line". They just do it by removing red numbers instead of adding black ones. Saving money and increasing overall productivity is just as important as bringing new money in; perhaps more important, as without the infrastructure, new money can't be targeted.
This comes from a guy who runs his own small business, so no, I don't have a general hard-on for IT. I just know that "important" and "valued" aren't necessarily the same thing for the crop of MBAs I've dealt with in the past.
You know, I struggled with these concepts pretty mightily when I "fell away" from my church. It was very difficult to determine a path after I decided that the false path laid out before me wasn't a path at all, but rather smoke-and-mirrors. I chose to go it alone, and I had a very hard time deciding what it was I should do with my life, and why any of it mattered anyway. All of my soul-searching, agonizing, and the sense of loss in realizing that, for me, blind faith wasn't enough, didn't get me any closer to happiness, nor the "meaning of life". It all seemed so empty, as you say above, and I spent a couple year just feeling lost.
;). I'm absolutely certain, though, that any "being" at the end of it all is NOT what the organized religious folks tell us. Rather, I think that this "being", or reality, or concept, or whatever word fits for you, encompasses a realm that exists before and will exist after whatever our universe is, and we're just not equipped to understand that. Why worry about the currently impossible? Does it make any more sense to worry about what happens after you die than to worry about how to grow plants on Pluto? You can't figure it out until you know what's gonna happen when you get there. In the meantime, focus on what's important. The way I figure it, I'm adding a tiny but permanent net "good" to existence simply by living happily, and I honestly don't much care about the details beyond that. It's a pretty fine thought to me. Better, by far, than banking on a mythological "heaven" when I die.
In the end, the very simplest, smallest, most basic of concepts is what pulled me through.
I've become a happy person for one simple reason: I read a quote that said "Choose to be happy, every single morning." and decided it made sense to give it a shot. I know it sounds trite, but I've found it's true. Couple that with following the golden rule as often as you can (including to yourself, tautology be damned; and it's not as easy at it seems). If you do, guess what? You end up a good, happy person, with the strength to handle all challenges, and you'll end up looking back on a happy life, full of accomplishment that YOU have defined. The other interesting side-effect? Even if there IS a higher being of some sort you'll come out ok in the end, and not from fear of a whip.
Admittedly, I do still wonder sometimes (especially when I've altered the state of my mind in one of various ways
The FMLA says you can take 12 weeks for maternity leave; after that, the job can be replaced. Both men and women can take this time off, and it's been in place since 1993.
As for the frivolous sexual harassment suits.... I don't know how much effect these have had, though I highly doubt it's even a small consideration for a truly professional hiring manager.
Besides, even if there ARE people who are worried about either of these cases, and steer clear of hiring women because of their worry, they are the PROBLEM, not a symptom.
I should provide more details. If I default, I suppose they could take all my printers, computers, etc but it affects my LLC, not me (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/biz/Biz_ops/20000831.asp), and really, I would be stupid to let it get to that point. If I can't cover fixed costs, I close my doors. Econ 101. My brother actually closed his shop up, no longer selling his welding supplies or artwork, though he's still got the LLC and business name. He's just not spending or generating until he's ready to give it another go.
/..
My whole point is there are loans *specifically* designed for the high-risk business of... err... starting a business. All you have to do is look, though having spotless credit and knowing an accountant and a tax lawyer helps a shit-ton. Even the bank will be super helpful; they WANT you to succeed. I also don't know if a band can do this; maybe banks don't look favorably on "we want to play music" as a business plan (though, realistically, any business plan needs more flesh than that). However, this model works for LOADS of businesses, and if the big labels die in fire, it should totally be something a band can use to get started.
If, on the other hand, your goal is to get on the Billboard 100 with your debut album, you're talking more about winning the lottery than starting a band. I guess I just don't understand why "making it big" always means making millions of dollars per year for your music, and having every person in the country know your name. I met a musician in Key West once.
She was playing at a bar called Tapas and Tintas (wonderful seafood paella), and she was terrific. I'm talking one of the best shows-I-ever-attended terrific. She took home about $500 that night in tips, and I personally bought a half dozen of her self printed and stamped CDs for 8 bucks each (she gave me one for buying her a shot). She also made another $150 for the gig itself. She played 4 nights a week during heavy tourist times, and in case you missed it, she LIVED in Key West the rest of the year. Do you know what she needed to start up? A guitar, an amp, a macbook, and a cd stamper. Maybe a ride to Key West in the first place; we never got that far in the conversation. Happiest person I'd met in a very long time.
I also met a band called "Clumsy Lovers" here in SLC a few years ago. Great band, unique sound (a fiddle for the motherfucking win!), amazing show, crowded venue, and they love what they do. Not sure if they were signed or not, but they were pro, did their own recordings, and were able to travel (http://clumsylovers.com/about/). I think they're with Nettwerk Records now, who are based in Vancouver.
Even The Used used to play small shows in Provo before getting extremely lucky and attracting the attention of Reprise (I think they've since gone indy?). I don't know if their goal was to get signed from the minute they formed the band or not, but I do know they used to play some pretty kickass local musice.
All anecdotal, sure, but people are succeeding at this while we all bitch about how impossible it is on
Here's how I did it:
https://www.americafirst.com/business/loan-products/line-of-credit/sba-unsecured.cfm
Working great so far.
I came across more snarky than intended. My point was only that others have struggled with these issues for decades in starting other, more mundane firms, and many more people fail than succeed. Bakeries, coffee shops, art studios, flower shops, bars, and many others all start the same way, and yes, you do have to risk a lot to cultivate your dream, but you keep risking and keep pushing until you either have no gas left, or you succeed.
I agree that all of your points are valid challenges, but is it not better to look upon them as challenges instead of obstacles?
IIRC O.K. go said it was closer to 250k to launch a new national band - at the low end.
So get 250k or don't launch nationally. If I wanted to launch a nation-wide volume capable print shop and design studio, I'd be looking at half a million in equipment, people, space, advertising, and all the rest.
You're absolutely correct; starting a nation wide business out of the gate (or band) is both expensive and risky, while starting smaller is both less expensive and less risky (and, as such, less profitable). Success has many measures, and nationwide popularity is the top echelon for a band. There are other measures, though, one of them being "doing what you love to pay the rent."
But still, spending 25k on a start up with a high risk factor is more risk capital then the average person has.
Baloney. How much is the average new car these days? If you can qualify for that loan, you can go small business loan, too, if you write a solid business plan.
Let's say I make good food. Right now I have a full time job to support my family, which means that any food I make is in the spare time between work and sleep and whatnot. If I can't make money off of the food I create, it will continue to be made only in the spare time I have. I will produce it slowly and sparingly. I won't be able to serve that many people. We don't need a system where I become a millionaire, but it does need to be enough that I can make music (or books, or any other form of art) my occupation rather than my hobby, if I'm good enough.
Bold stuff is mine, of course. We DO have a system, and it's called "small business". Many people are great at a lot of things, and many things can be monetized. In my changes above, the "food cooker" could start a restaurant, if he's willing to risk failing at it.
A friend of mine is a very talented printer, and a moderately talented photographer. He is also moderately (ok, ok... slightly) successful, and sometimes he has to sell things that aren't his favorite things to create, but he's making it. It was a huge risk, and I almost gave up many times. It's looking like he's gonna be ok (knock on wood), but there are no guarantees. But this is his dream, and he was willing to risk everything for it. Are you?
Granted, securing your startup funds and skirting the big boys to get your product to the masses will be tricky, but I have no doubt it *could* be done. I'd love to see the record labels crumble, and allow much easier access to production and distribution facilities, but rather than blame reality, find a way to utilize it.
Also: business savvy. Get some or hire some.
I note that you don't really explain exactly *why* you or other artists aren't successful at selling music. Is it a marketing thing? Production thing? Distribution thing? Only a portion of the population enjoys your genre thing?
If you could pinpoint where things go pear-shaped, maybe there are ways you could improve inefficiencies or decrease costs that people can recommend. Just like any business, you have to control the costs to maximize the profits. If you cannot do that, then the business won't succeed. Attempting to hire another business to railroad your product to the masses (which is essentially what artists utilizing record labels are doing) is one option to avoid failure, but that, obviously, has a pretty dramatic downside.
Yes. Think about all those commuters driving to work, every single day. It's one reason why ads are much more common during rush hour.
Radio is still a wonderful venue for advertising, which means dollars gravitate toward it, which then means it's a huge benchmark of success if your music gets played, which finally means the record labels buy every second they can, and only offer their purchased time to the auto-tuned "sure things".
Getting air time isn't even a record exec's opinion of "good" or not anymore, which might have been somewhat defensible (hey, it's his company and he really didn't like it; it's douche-y, but they're his rules). Now, though, it's a decision based on what is "similar enough to past success to guarantee new success, but able to be buggered up enough to sound new for a couple months".
I hear a lot new music I like, but anything new seems like it only makes it into the mainstream after getting popular enough in the underground (over years!!) to guarantee a successful "debut".
This is the real issue. So many people ARE able to succeed from the ground up, sweating and bleeding for their dream, working 90 hour weeks to get a business it off the ground to just break even.
Getting to that point is hard enough already, without being told by the Supreme God Of Muzaks, Distributor of Circular Shinies, Father of all Vibration, and Defender of the Airwaves!!! that "It's time to pay me a toll now that you're on my radar. Otherwise, Imma eat your work and shit your dream while you watch."
Well, of course they would. But I think the GP's point is nobody would ever take a loan like that if there were alternatives, and there most definitely should be. Granted, not every musician has what it takes to start a business, but not every inventor or programmer or barista does, either, yet I still see new products, software, and coffee being sold by someone who does have what it takes.
What I don't see is Starbucks able to get away with locking small shops completely out of competition based solely on not allowing competitors to rent the space, like the big record labels can do ("Can we buy up every minute of the day's radio signals and refuse to play nice with artists, period? Well sure we can!!").